From 13 January 2026, we will no longer accept new case enquiries by email. Please use our online complaint form to bring a complaint to us. This helps us respond to you more quickly.

Need help? Other ways to contact us.

London Borough of Camden Council (202501402)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202501402

London Borough of Camden Council

12 September 2025

 

Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of outstanding repairs, damp and mould, and staff conduct.

Background

  1. The resident is a secure tenant of a 1-bedroom ground floor flat. The landlord, a local council, owns the property.
  2. The resident complained to the landlord on 8 October 2024. She said that its operative attended to complete repairs and was “extremely” rude. They would not replace her skirting boards and caused damage to the wall and pipework. While they fixed the pipe the same day, they would not return until November 2024 to repair the damaged wall. She felt unsafe and asked them to leave.
  3. The landlord sent its stage 1 complaint response to the resident on 22 October 2024. It explained that it spoke with its operative and was investigating further. It described the work undertaken on 7 October 2024 and found no service failure. It confirmed an appointment for 1 November 2024 to repair the wall. It apologised for any distress or inconvenience due to the leak caused and offered £100 compensation.
  4. The resident asked the landlord to escalate her complaint on 15 November 2024. She said that it had not fully understood her complaint and asked to speak to someone. She explained that the repairs originated from damp and mould due to gaps in the flooring. She added that its compensation offer was not sufficient for the trauma caused.
  5. The landlord sent its stage 2 complaint response to the resident on 16 December 2024.It explained that its repairs records confirmed that the skirting boards did not require replacement. It apologised that the hot water pipe was damaged and for any distress caused by its operative. It confirmed that it repaired the damage to the wall in November 2024 and there were no outstanding repairs. It noted that there had been multiple repairs to the wet room since 2021 and that this would have been distressing. It increased its compensation offer to £200.
  6. The resident was unhappy with the landlord’s response and brought her complaint to us. She told us that no one has been to assess the damage, fit the grab rails, or address the damp and mould in her home.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. In the resident’s correspondence she stated that dealing with repairs affected her mental health and caused trauma.
  2. The courts are the most effective place for disputes about personal injury and illness. This is largely because independent medical experts are appointed to give evidence. They have a duty to the court to provide unbiased insights on the diagnosis, prognosis, and cause of any illness or injury. When disputes arise over the cause of an illness, oral testimony can be examined in court. Therefore, this element of the complaint is better dealt with via the court. We can, however, consider any likely distress or inconvenience caused as a result of any failings by the landlord.
  3. The resident told us that she also complained about her kitchen fire door. However, this does not appear to have formed part of her complaint made on 8 October 2024. The landlord has also not responded to this matter in its complaint responses. We have, therefore, not considered this matter as part of this investigation. The resident may wish to raise a new complaint to the landlord about this.

Reports of outstanding repairs, damp and mould, and staff conduct

  1. The landlord provided limited evidence in relation to this complaint. This has affected our ability to effectively assess the timeline of events. Our investigation has, therefore, relied on the evidence available.
  2. The landlord’s repairs records show that the resident reported that her skirting boards were rotting in 2022. She made a further report on 3 July 2023 that the living room skirting was rotten and the wet room floor had cracked. She contacted the landlord on 31 July 2023 stating that its carpenter had visited and stated that the boards were not rotten. She disputed this and asked for it to be investigated further. We have seen no evidence of any further communication in relation to this.
  3. In the resident’s complaint on 8 October 2024, she said that the landlord’s operative who attended her home the day before was “extremely rude”. They stated they were installing handrails in the wet room but would not replace the skirting boards. She said that its tiler caused damage to the wall and “gas” pipe. While they fixed the pipe the same day they would not return until November 2024 to repair the damage. She called a neighbour as she felt unsafe and the operative’s mood changed when they arrived. They asked to shake hands and not argue but she refused and asked them to leave. She asked for a meeting with the head of repairs, for her repairs to be completed urgently, and an assessment of the damage.
  4. In the landlord’s stage 1 complaint response on 22 October 2024, it said it had spoken with the operative and was investigating further. It explained that its plumber attended on 7 October 2024 to clean water from the floor. They waited for the carpenter to remove tiles and cut out the ply for them to access the pipe. They chopped out the wall and cut the pipework, replaced fittings, ran a section of pipe, and tested this. They fitted 6 tiles and an electric plastic skirting 5cm high. They accidentally drilled through the shower water pipe which they repaired the same day.
  5. The landlord said that it was unable to uphold the resident’s complaint as it found no service failure. It confirmed it would attend on 1 November 2024 to complete the wall repair. It apologised that the leak caused distress and inconvenience and offered £100 compensation.
  6. The landlord’s response was reasonable. It explained the work it attended to complete, apologised for the accidental leak and its operative, and offered to put things right. Its compensation offer was appropriate and in line with our remedies guidance.
  7. In the resident’s escalation request to the landlord on 15 November 2024, she said she did not believe it had fully understood her complaint. She said that the reason for the repair was mould. Its mould team had stated that the mould was due to gaps in the flooring which allowed the walls to become wet. It had been 3 years and she still had gaps. However, she said that its floor layer did a “fantastic job” only for the next person to continue with the job and “mess it up”. She believed that its operatives were attending without knowing exactly what the job was.
  8. The resident also stated that since the “gas” pipe was damaged she lived in fear. She was initially told it was not a gas pipe but after some time the operative agreed. She was not confident the pipe had been fixed and her heating was not working as well. When it attended on 1 November 2024, she was told they were there to take photographs. This “shocked and upset” her and affected her mental health. She added that the same problem kept occurring and its compensation offer was not sufficient for the trauma caused. She asked for a call to discuss her complaint further but we have seen no evidence that it spoke with her about her concerns.
  9. In the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response on 16 December 2024, it explained that it had reviewed its repairs records for the past 4 years. It was unable to find any records of issues with the wet room floor prior to November 2022. However, there were notes relating to other issues with the wet room, including tiles falling off in 2021. This is supported by its repairs records and demonstrates that it investigated its repairs history to fully consider the matter.
  10. The landlord said that its stage 1 response focussed on the work completed on 7 October 2024. It explained that she asserted that its operative was rude and disrespectful and caused damage to a gas pipe. It said it was clear that the visit became confrontational, but it was unclear if this was due to her frustration that the skirting was not being replaced, or that the pipe was damaged. It apologised that its operative damaged the hot water pipe and stated this was repaired the same day. It apologised for any disagreement and for any comments its operative made which were unprofessional. It explained it would record the incident and use this in forthcoming performance reviews. It also confirmed that it completed the tiling repairs on 1 November 2024.
  11. We understand that the operative’s refusal to replace the skirting would have been frustrating for the resident. However, this was not part of the work scheduled to take place that day. The landlord’s apology was appropriate as was its statement that it would use the incident in the operative’s performance review. We also acknowledge it would have been upsetting that the pipe was damaged. It is reasonable to assume that it was a hot water pipe, rather than a gas pipe given it caused a water leak. However, it failed to acknowledge her assertion that her heating was not working as well or investigate this further. We have made a recommendation in relation to this.
  12. The landlord explained that the resident had been reporting rotten skirting boards for a number of years. However, its repair records stated that the boards were not rotten. It said that its carpenter attended in July 2023 and noted some damage due to damp which had since dried out. However, the skirting boards were solid with no rot. They advised that the boards could be repaired with filler, sanding and repainting. It said that its damp and mould inspections identified some mould on the skirting, but it was treated with a mould wash at the time. It had no outstanding repairs for the skirting boards.
  13. The landlord again demonstrated investigating its repairs history. It is reasonable for it to rely on its operatives’ professional opinions as to whether any work is required. However, it is not known if it offered to fill, sand and repaint the skirting boards and we have made a recommendation in relation to this.
  14. The landlord further explained that the gaps in the floor were reported in 2022 and had been repaired. However, it accepted that the resident had various repairs to the wet room since 2021 which would have been frustrating and distressing for her. In light of this, and due to the incident on 7 October 2024, it increased its compensation offer to £200. While the work was complete, it would ask its repairs supervisor to contact her and arrange a post work inspection.
  15. In summary, the landlord’s apologies, completion of repairs, and offer of compensation was reasonable. Its increased offer was within the range of awards set out in our remedies guidance. We, therefore, find it has made a reasonable offer of redress. We have made recommendations for it to post inspect the work if it has not already done so, consider filling the skirting boards, and check that the resident’s heating is working effectively.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53.b of the Scheme the landlord has made an offer of redress prior to investigation which, in our opinion, satisfactorily resolves its handling of the resident’s reports of outstanding repairs, damp and mould, and conduct of visiting staff.

Recommendations

  1. Our finding of reasonable redress is made on the basis that the landlord pays the resident the sum of £200 offered in its stage 2 response if not already paid.
  2. The landlord should contact the resident to arrange a post inspection if it has not already done so. It should consider filling the skirting boards and check that the heating is working effectively.